This article was first published by Canada's National Observer.
Recent global events, from war-driven oil shocks to attacks on critical infrastructure, have shown the fragility of current centralized fossil fuel chains. The effects have been felt most prominently at the pump, resulting in an average fuel price increase of 27.1 per cent since the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. As Canada seeks more resilience from these shocks, shown by the recently published national electricity strategy and broader electrification agenda, no product highlights this more than electric vehicles (EVs). Right now, the more important policy question is no longer whether EVs are cleaner or more efficient, but which transportation and energy systems are likely to prove more resilient in an era defined by geopolitical fragmentation, cyber risk, climate disruption and information disorder.
With that in mind, the more important distinction may be between centralized fossil fuel systems and increasingly distributed electric systems. Gasoline and diesel supply chains depend on highly centralized infrastructures of extraction, refining, transport and retail distribution. These systems are vulnerable to geopolitical conflict, cyberattacks, natural disasters, shipping disruptions and price volatility. Recent global conflicts and energy crises have repeatedly demonstrated how quickly fuel prices and supply chains can destabilize when concentrated infrastructure is disrupted. Even countries like Canada and the US — two of the top oil producing countries in the world — are not immune from such commodity shocks and subject to international oil prices.
For years, EV critics have framed them as fragile, overly digital machines: vulnerable to cyberattacks, dependent on unreliable infrastructure, and incapable of functioning during serious crises. In public discourse, gasoline-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles are often portrayed as the more rugged and resilient option — particularly during geopolitical instability, infrastructure disruption or emergencies. But many critiques directed specifically at EVs misunderstand a broader reality: modern vehicles of all kinds are now deeply digital systems.
Regardless of perceptions, today’s ICE vehicles are also “computers on wheels.” Modern automobiles — regardless of powertrain — rely heavily on software controlling braking, steering, navigation, safety systems, engine management, connectivity and remote updates. Many contain more software code than advanced military aircraft. As vehicles become increasingly connected and autonomous, cybersecurity risks are becoming systemic across the automotive sector and not unique to EVs. The relevant comparison is therefore not between “digital EVs” and “mechanical gas cars.” That world no longer exists.
While it is true that electricity systems are not immune to disruption, they can also draw from a far wider range of generation sources and distribution models. Power can increasingly be produced domestically through hydroelectricity (approximately 55 per cent of Canada's electricity generation), nuclear energy (13 per cent), wind (7 to 8 per cent), solar (1 per cent), geothermal and distributed microgrids, reducing reliance on vulnerable centralized energy systems. In countries such as Canada, where electricity generation is already relatively diversified and low-carbon, this creates important long-term resilience advantages by reducing exposure to global fuel price volatility, strengthening energy security, increasing system redundancy, improving adaptive capacity in the face of climate-related disruptions and enabling more decentralized and flexible energy systems capable of sustaining critical infrastructure during emergencies.
That said, EVs are vulnerable to a different set of problems, such as challenges in battery supply chain dependencies, charging infrastructure gaps, fragmented provincial policy frameworks and cybersecurity concerns. Canada and its allies also remain heavily dependent on critical minerals and battery manufacturing capacity, of which China controls between 70 and 96 per cent, along with other geopolitically sensitive supply chains.
EV charging infrastructure is also becoming more distributed and adaptable over time. While charging networks still require substantial expansion, EVs can already be charged from homes, workplaces, public chargers, solar installations, backup battery systems and localized grids. During emergencies, access to electricity may ultimately prove easier to restore than liquid fuel logistics, dependent on tanker deliveries, refinery operations and functioning gas stations. Even gasoline infrastructure itself relies heavily on electricity for fuel pumps, payment systems, refining operations and transportation networks. Concerns about EV battery fires are often poorly contextualized, as while lithium-ion fires can be difficult to extinguish, gasoline vehicles catch fire at significantly higher rates, with EV incidents receiving disproportionate attention due to their novelty and media visibility.
At the same time, public debate surrounding EVs has become increasingly shaped by misinformation and disinformation circulating across digital platforms. Viral claims about inevitable grid collapse, exaggerated battery fire risks or the impossibility of EV adoption in cold climates frequently spread without context, often amplified through polarized online ecosystems. Legitimate debates certainly exist around infrastructure readiness, industrial policy, mineral supply chains and affordability. These include questions about the expansion of EV charging networks and electricity grids, the development of domestic clean technology and manufacturing capacity, reliance on critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt and nickel, and the costs associated with electric vehicles and other low-carbon technologies. But distorted or misleading narratives can undermine evidence-based policymaking and complicate long-term infrastructure planning precisely when governments are attempting to strengthen energy resilience.
This creates an important policy challenge. Governments should not simply promote EV adoption; they should also strengthen public understanding of the broader resilience benefits associated with electrification. Public-interest communication strategies, greater transparency around energy infrastructure planning, and support for independent research on online energy misinformation could all help improve the quality of democratic debate surrounding transportation transition policies.
Policymakers should also work with provinces, utilities and industry to accelerate investment in distributed grids, vehicle-to-grid technologies, interoperable charging networks and domestic battery recycling and manufacturing capacity. Strengthening cybersecurity standards for all connected vehicles and charging systems will likewise become increasingly important as transportation and energy systems converge.
None of this suggests an immediate or universal transition away from ICE vehicles. In remote regions and sectors requiring specialized heavy-duty transportation, conventional and hybrid vehicles may remain necessary for years to come. Nor should policymakers underestimate the importance of securing critical mineral supply chains and addressing vulnerabilities within electricity infrastructure itself.
When centralized fuel chains fracture, the costs land on ordinary Canadians first and fastest. EVs won't eliminate that vulnerability overnight, but they point toward a system that is distributed, domestically grounded and harder to shock. In an era defined by energy insecurity, digital dependence, geopolitical volatility and increasingly contested information environments, resilience increasingly depends on diversification, decentralization and adaptability. Electrified transportation systems, despite their limitations, may ultimately align more closely with those resilience imperatives. Canada's national electricity strategy is a start — the harder work is building the governance institutions to match the ambition.
